I'm afraid there is no such thing as a theory of evolution...a hypothesis of evolution, yes, but a theory....no.

fuck i guess we are all out of a job then

hey jerry don't tell anyone OK just post it on blogs that way no one will ever give a shit but you

anyone else here think this idiot is deliberately trolling? †Which of one you is billybob again? †PM me you cretinous doppelganger you

I'm tempted to say he's trolling - incoherent posts, lots of "LOLs" and "WINKs", it screams troll. That's why I find it increasingly hard to even discuss his ideas, and I admire those who still do. I mean, I love to talk about evolution with my neighbours' kids aged 10 and 12, but Mr Bauer ???

Well, those kids are probably both 1) curious and 2) not completely stupid.

Billy Jim I am not so sure about but I don't think he qualifies under either criterion.

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell.†Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

And I agree that I would need to show populations coming into existence all at once...but I ALREADY have that evidence. It's in the fossil record...You seem like an educated man, do I really need to walk you through the Cambrian Explosion?

Why stop at the so-called Cambrian explosion? It is such a short time, on the order of millions of years or something like that. Was the factory closed down when the Cambrium "ended"?

Why not walk us all the way from Cambrium to Holocene?

BTW - holes in the fossil record doesn't really constitue proof that species was not evolving in the interim.

Yes, please do walk us through the 55 million years of the cambrian.

In doing so, please be sure to explain, at length, the process of fossilization and why soft-bodied organisms are highly unlikely to fossilize.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

A read of his papers and some of his class notes gave me an understanding of how molecular design is understood by design engineers. Maginn states throughout his teachings that the understanding of chemical/molecular design hinges on reductionism--the microscopics of design explain the macroscopics of the final product.

If I were to build a complete football stadium out of lego blocks and wanted to explain to another how I did it, I would pass over explaining the structure itself and hone in on the microstates ...forget the stadium and look at each little lego block and determine how it is placed, because, once again, the microscopics are going to determine the macroscopic.

So here is what we know about chemical and molecular synthesis......It, as well as everything else, begins with quantum mechanics as it's ultimate microstate....particles...

Of course, in the field of QM, research goes on. In fact, we are just NOW beginning to understand that science with any sense of insight...but this much we know....EVERYTHING that IS begins HERE in it's ultimate microstate.....

So if this is the EVERYTHING...is there a methodology that we can grasp to suggest that INTELLIGENCE might control these microstates and the outcome of them which will dictate a final macrostate?

If intelligence DID control the formation of these microstates, it could certainly explain how life was was created by that intelligence.

When partcles...electrons, photons etc are created at the same time, by the same system, they tend to become entangled. But what does this mean?

It means that if I take two of these entangled particles to study, something weird happens...anything I do to one affects the other.

I could keep one on earth and send the other to mars. Then if I did something to the one on earth...say...change it's spin or momentum, the one on mars will also be affected. No one know HOW or WHY...but we know that's the way it is....research continues.

But were not ALL the particles in this universe created at the same time by the same system? Yes, that system is called the big bang.

And haven't I said that I also believe the Creator to be quantum mechanics....particles? Yes.....then I can logically draw a conclusion.....That creator can begin to manipulate quantum mechanics, the building blocks of life simply by manipulating itself because it is entangled with ALL in the universe. This would be done without labs or ever even lifting a test tube...

I believe it did so...and the steps of that synthesis are recorded in the fossil record.

First came simple cells, then clusters of cells, then more complex organisms and finally the ultimate product: homo sapiens with fine minds that make us doctors, lawyers and engineers.

I call that manipulator God...BTW...you can call it anything you wish....

A read of his papers and some of his class notes gave me an understanding of how molecular design is understood by design engineers. Maginn states throughout his teachings that the understanding of chemical/molecular design hinges on reductionism--the microscopics of design explain the macroscopics of the final product.

If I were to build a complete football stadium out of lego blocks and wanted to explain to another how I did it, I would pass over explaining the structure itself and hone in on the microstates ...forget the stadium and look at each little lego block and determine how it is placed, because, once again, the microscopics are going to determine the macroscopic.

So here is what we know about chemical and molecular synthesis......It, as well as everything else, begins with quantum mechanics as it's ultimate microstate....particles...

Of course, in the field of QM, research goes on. In fact, we are just NOW beginning to understand that science with any sense of insight...but this much we know....EVERYTHING that IS begins HERE in it's ultimate microstate.....

So if this is the EVERYTHING...is there a methodology that we can grasp to suggest that INTELLIGENCE might control these microstates and the outcome of them which will dictate a final macrostate?

If intelligence DID control the formation of these microstates, it could certainly explain how life was was created by that intelligence.

When partcles...electrons, photons etc are created at the same time, by the same system, they tend to become entangled. But what does this mean?

It means that if I take two of these entangled particles to study, something weird happens...anything I do to one affects the other.

I could keep one on earth and send the other to mars. Then if I did something to the one on earth...say...change it's spin or momentum, the one on mars will also be affected. No one know HOW or WHY...but we know that's the way it is....research continues.

But were not ALL the particles in this universe created at the same time by the same system? Yes, that system is called the big bang.

And haven't I said that I also believe the Creator to be quantum mechanics....particles? Yes.....then I can logically draw a conclusion.....That creator can begin to manipulate quantum mechanics, the building blocks of life simply by manipulating itself because it is entangled with ALL in the universe. This would be done without labs or ever even lifting a test tube...

I believe it did so...and the steps of that synthesis are recorded in the fossil record.

First came simple cells, then clusters of cells, then more complex organisms and finally the ultimate product: homo sapiens with fine minds that make us doctors, lawyers and engineers.

I call that manipulator God...BTW...you can call it anything you wish....

so, no details of the species-poofing process?

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell.†Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

But were not ALL the particles in this universe created at the same time by the same system? Yes, that system is called the big bang.

No. Quarks and leptons would have formed out of energy after the big bang. (Composite particles would come after that, after the whole thing was cool enough for them to be stable.)

WHEN.....or what came first. second and third are not really relevant, Henry

My understanding is that matter particles formed from energy after the energy got cool enough for that to happen. I don't think they would have all formed at the same time. For more details than that, you'll have to ask a physicist.

But were not ALL the particles in this universe created at the same time by the same system? Yes, that system is called the big bang.

No. Quarks and leptons would have formed out of energy after the big bang. (Composite particles would come after that, after the whole thing was cool enough for them to be stable.)

WHEN.....or what came first. second and third are not really relevant, Henry

My understanding is that matter particles formed from energy after the energy got cool enough for that to happen. I don't think they would have all formed at the same time. For more details than that, you'll have to ask a physicist.

Really no need to ask a physicist on this one because energy and particles are exactly the same thing. Remember we are at the quantum level.

JerryJoeDonBillyBob bullshitting bloviator, jack of all things OFF and all-round idiot on any subject under the Sun, including the Sun channeling JoeG wrote:

Quote

energy and particles are exactly the same thing.

While you're channeling Gary or JoeG or GaryBillyBobJoeG perhaps you could address the following:

Is the null set a set?Is water and ice the same thing?Is a single molecule of H2O water?Is hair growing on the palms of your hands?Has a guy named Lenny ever bought you a pizza?Do you like berries; blue, black, rasp and/or dingle?

A read of his papers and some of his class notes gave me an understanding of how molecular design is understood by design engineers. Maginn states throughout his teachings that the understanding of chemical/molecular design hinges on reductionism--the microscopics of design explain the macroscopics of the final product.

If I were to build a complete football stadium out of lego blocks and wanted to explain to another how I did it, I would pass over explaining the structure itself and hone in on the microstates ...forget the stadium and look at each little lego block and determine how it is placed, because, once again, the microscopics are going to determine the macroscopic.

So here is what we know about chemical and molecular synthesis......It, as well as everything else, begins with quantum mechanics as it's ultimate microstate....particles...

Of course, in the field of QM, research goes on. In fact, we are just NOW beginning to understand that science with any sense of insight...but this much we know....EVERYTHING that IS begins HERE in it's ultimate microstate.....

So if this is the EVERYTHING...is there a methodology that we can grasp to suggest that INTELLIGENCE might control these microstates and the outcome of them which will dictate a final macrostate?

If intelligence DID control the formation of these microstates, it could certainly explain how life was was created by that intelligence.

When partcles...electrons, photons etc are created at the same time, by the same system, they tend to become entangled. But what does this mean?

It means that if I take two of these entangled particles to study, something weird happens...anything I do to one affects the other.

I could keep one on earth and send the other to mars. Then if I did something to the one on earth...say...change it's spin or momentum, the one on mars will also be affected. No one know HOW or WHY...but we know that's the way it is....research continues.

But were not ALL the particles in this universe created at the same time by the same system? Yes, that system is called the big bang.

And haven't I said that I also believe the Creator to be quantum mechanics....particles? Yes.....then I can logically draw a conclusion.....That creator can begin to manipulate quantum mechanics, the building blocks of life simply by manipulating itself because it is entangled with ALL in the universe. This would be done without labs or ever even lifting a test tube...

I believe it did so...and the steps of that synthesis are recorded in the fossil record.

First came simple cells, then clusters of cells, then more complex organisms and finally the ultimate product: homo sapiens with fine minds that make us doctors, lawyers and engineers.

I call that manipulator God...BTW...you can call it anything you wish....

so, no details of the species-poofing process?

They're quantum micropoofs, Ras. Even more sciency.

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"... ¬†The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

Jerry, in your opinion, when was the last time God fired up the old conveyor belt and made something? †What was it?

I dunno....could the great manipulator also be......SANTA? :)

So, you claim that God specially creates everything. Is that right or am I wrong? If I am right, then am I also correct in thinking that you have no way of telling us when, how, or what this creating is?

"But were not ALL the particles in this universe created at the same time by the same system? Yes, that system is called the big bang."

The "big bang" was not an event that happened and then was completely done, all in a tiny fraction of a second. It's still happening. The evolution of the universe is still happening, just like the evolution of life forms is still happening. Show that I'm wrong, if you can, and don't bother with appeals to authority.

Edited by The whole truth on Dec. 04 2012,01:43

--------------Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

Take the ape-like creature morphing into homo sapiens....at some point in this supposed evolution, an ape has to cross the get-go line and birth a human....the species has to change in order for speciation to occur.

No. No. No. NO!

Small changes accumulate.

The amount of change from one generation to the next isn't expected to be any more than what we see today between one generation and the next.

The reason large changes aren't expected to emerge (at least not successfully) in one generation (or even a few) is basically what you said; offspring that's too different from its relatives would have trouble finding a mate, or mating successfully if it found one.

Speciation isn't a barrier; any barrier between two species is there because they've been accumulating changes separately for long enough for some of those differences to prevent interbreeding, or at least deter it.

Henry

OK, Henry....And ...BTW, thanks for your intelligent, civil posts......speciation happens in small increments....I'm all over that...

But the bottom line has to speak at some point.

And the bottom line says:...at at SOME point...a new species must emerge...that's what speciation IS.

So, At that point when speciation occurs, the proginating species will have to have, by the very definition of the word speciation, give birth to an entirely new species.

That new species will then not be able to interbreed with it's predecessors and must interbreed ONLY with it's own...new...species....

Science says nope......that original birth of a viable (it can live), fertile, (it too can produce offspring) new species isn't going to happen.

jerry, you apparently think that speciation means that one individual speciates at a time, while all the other individuals of a population remain exactly as their ancestors were. Is that what you think?

--------------Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

Well then, since you're a self-proclaimed expert on CSI, will you tell me, in detail, how much CSI there is in a wild banana? Will you tell me, in detail, who or what specified the complex information in a wild banana? And will you tell me, in detail, what the complex information is in a wild banana?

I'm sorry, I don't know how much CSI is in a wild banana...in fact, I don't think I even know any wild bananas...I used to date a Wild Irish Rose.....lol

But what specified the information in a wild banana? A banana seed did, or a seedling....This happened when DNA recombined......

Quote

While you're at it, will you tell me, in detail, how it is determined that information is 'complex'? Is there such a thing as information that is not complex? If so, where exactly is the dividing line between non-complex and complex information?

It's complex of it is over 500 bits of information...if it is also specified, it then becomes CSI (and all DNA, by it's very nature is specified information).

So, yeah, I'm messing with you a bit...but I would have to have a charted genome and take about a weeks time to calculate what you want.

But (and I have pointed this out before on here), why on earth do you want to calculate the CSI of an entire organism like that.....You want to know if it is CSI? Just a few proteins in a single cell of that organism is CSI.....You KNOW the whole organism would be, and astronomically so.

So, a banana seed is the 'specifier' of a banana? Who or what specified the banana seed? †QM? Intelligent molecules? yhwh-jesus-holy ghost? The FSM?

How did you come up with 500 bits as the minimum requirement for information to be "complex"? Is it because dembski or some other IDiot says so? Why not 400 bits, or 600 bits, or 3.9 bits, or 100 trillion bits?

Was there complex specified information before there were humans? If so, who or what was around to figure out the 'bits'?

"So, yeah, I'm messing with you a bit...but I would have to have a charted genome and take about a weeks time to calculate what you want."

I don't mind waiting a week.

"But (and I have pointed this out before on here), why on earth do you want to calculate the CSI of an entire organism like that.....You want to know if it is CSI? Just a few proteins in a single cell of that organism is CSI.....You KNOW the whole organism would be, and astronomically so."

Why on Earth not? In all the years that you IDiots have been pushing "CSI", none of you have ever calculated the CSI in an entire organism? I would think that you would be anxious to do so.

Edited by The whole truth on Dec. 04 2012,02:50

--------------Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

Take the ape-like creature morphing into homo sapiens....at some point in this supposed evolution, an ape has to cross the get-go line and birth a human....the species has to change in order for speciation to occur.

No. No. No. NO!

Small changes accumulate.

The amount of change from one generation to the next isn't expected to be any more than what we see today between one generation and the next.

The reason large changes aren't expected to emerge (at least not successfully) in one generation (or even a few) is basically what you said; offspring that's too different from its relatives would have trouble finding a mate, or mating successfully if it found one.

Speciation isn't a barrier; any barrier between two species is there because they've been accumulating changes separately for long enough for some of those differences to prevent interbreeding, or at least deter it.

Henry

OK, Henry....And ...BTW, thanks for your intelligent, civil posts......speciation happens in small increments....I'm all over that...

But the bottom line has to speak at some point.

And the bottom line says:...at at SOME point...a new species must emerge...that's what speciation IS.

So, At that point when speciation occurs, the proginating species will have to have, by the very definition of the word speciation, give birth to an entirely new species.

That new species will then not be able to interbreed with it's predecessors and must interbreed ONLY with it's own...new...species....

Science says nope......that original birth of a viable (it can live), fertile, (it too can produce offspring) new species isn't going to happen.

jerry, you apparently think that speciation means that one individual speciates at a time, while all the other individuals of a population remain exactly as their ancestors were. Is that what you think?

"think"

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell.†Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

Jerry, in your opinion, when was the last time God fired up the old conveyor belt and made something? †What was it?

I dunno....could the great manipulator also be......SANTA? :)

So, you claim that God specially creates everything. †Is that right or am I wrong? †If I am right, then am I also correct in thinking that you have no way of telling us when, how, or what this creating is?

That would be wrong.

Also define God...According to YOUR definition, God may have created NOTHING.

I postulate that QM created life. If you wish to call that God, go for it.

"But were not ALL the particles in this universe created at the same time by the same system? Yes, that system is called the big bang."

The "big bang" was not an event that happened and then was completely done, all in a tiny fraction of a second. It's still happening. The evolution of the universe is still happening, just like the evolution of life forms is still happening. Show that I'm wrong, if you can, and don't bother with appeals to authority.

And let me guess...you consider referrences from journaled papers and University science departments as the argument from authority...